Yeah. If I was to guess "SEJ" is Steven E. Jones. Utah corporate name search yields nothing and there's a fee for searching by owner. Many states don't require one to register a dba if it's your legal name or a form of it. My guess is Jones used his initials as a dba for his bogus company. But did it in a way that was purposefully misleading; anyone would assume, in the context of the paper, it was a legit company or lab unconnected to the authors. That is, at the least, deceptive and unethical.
I disagree. At the beginning of the paper, the authors names are listed followed by their affiliations. How can anyone read that paper and think the listed affiliations were unconnected with the authors when it's written on the first page? Just my opinion.
I was sloppy. Sorry. By unconnected I meant uninvested in their research. Just because you work at X doesn't mean X supports whatever "research" you're involved with. I was skimming for the S&J company, remembering the connection with Jones. The impression I had was the affiliations were supposed to give the authors mainstream credibility. I remembered some universities listed. Now I've reopened the whole doc, I see the Bentham paper authors have a mix of neutral and woo affiliations: 1Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark 2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA 3S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA 49/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA 5Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia 6Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA 7International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, US With nothing else to go on, many considered S&J another independent non woo organization, though they shouldn't. You're right; if one is reading carefully, S&J is obviously connected to Jones more so than any school or company. But I still think Jones was being sleazy about it, maybe padding the paper because he couldn't use Bingham as an affiliation anymore? Then on the third hand why bother inventing a company that can easily be checked out as not existing? He just assumed truthers weren't going to pay attention? It makes my head hurt. Even when these people are obviously being dishonest, they do it in a way that is convoluted and completely unnecessary. This begs the question of why any of the authors, of paper they supposedly wanted to be taken seriously, would list affiliations to conspiracy organizations at all. This is supposed to be just science. I admit I'm not a scientist or an expert in the peer review process or what is considered normal formatting/protocol. I just know normal shouldn't involve a vanity press.
Maybe you should explain that to Steven Jones then Koko. Here is the spectrum from a PAINT CHIP taken from a piece of WTC steel as presented by him: See that third peak from the left labeled Fe? I wonder what Fe means? Hmmmm... Are you saying Jones mislabeled that peak for Fe? Or that he doesn't know what he is doing?
Koko/Bob, How did Harrit and his cronies deem this spectrum to be thermite: When Jones presented THIS specturm of analyzed actual paint from WTC steel: They match! Poor Harrit misidentified paint as thermite. Jones himself proves Harrit wrong! What a joke!
Just an FYI. The iron microspheres weren't "in the paint". They were in the dust. And before you try and explain away your previous "microspheres in the paint" comment, are you saying that you believe that iron microspheres being present in the WTC dust could have been produced by means OTHER than a thermite reaction?
Correct! So since "they don't put iron microspheres into paint", how did they get into the dust Bob? Let's settle this right now. Do you think that thermite is what caused the appearance of iron microspheres in the WTC dust or are there other ways that iron microspheres could have been produced in said dust?
No ****? Why were they in the dust then? Oh wait you wouldn't know, who am I asking? Again making **** up. I have no clue how they got there, NIST never mentioned them, much less investigated their presence. The Harrit/Jones team claims they were produced by a thermite/ate reaction. I don't have the qualifications to support or refute their findings, much less the evidence and the facility at my disposal. I'm pretty sure neither do you on all counts. NIST had all of those but didn't do their job, just like everything else they didn't do that they should have done. Obviously you refuse to question or criticize NIST on anything but you're sure big on questioning and criticizing anyone and everyone that might contradict the OCT. Having said all that, there seems to be quite a bit of supporting evidence for a thermite/ate reaction or some kind of chemical reaction that produced all that molten steel and iron microspheres that NIST claims they never heard about. Given the (legitimately) uncontested findings of the Jones/Harrit team, the odds are quite good that they are correct.
In the end, you have no clue how they got there and that you admit that there may be other ways iron microspheres could have been in the dust other than a thermite reaction. Thanks for clarifying your position Bob.
You don't need qualifications! The "experts", Steven Jones and Harrit have provided them for you. You're just playing games. You don;t need qualifications to SEE that the two spectrums provided by these "experts" are matches. Steven Jones' paint chip spectrum: Harrit's "contaminated thermite" spectrum: Are you honestly saying you can't SEE that they match? Keep feigning ignorance Bob. It's what you do best.
And neither do you. So what's your point? Am I NIST to you? That's you point? If it is you're really quick, I alluded to that more or less in Post #2 in this thread.
Just making sure that you don't think thermite could be the only cause for iron microspheres in the WTC dust. Again, thanks for clarifying.
The choice for credibility I and everyone else has is the Harrit/Jones findings or an anonymous poster's opinion in a mostly anonymous forum who never ever questions/criticizes the OCT or the storytellers but ALWAYS questions/criticizes anyone and everyone who contradicts/questions the OCT and the storytellers and pretends he knows better than verifiable credentialed experts. I can't speak for anyone else but the choice for me is not really much of a choice. Like I said they made be 100% wrong or 100% wrong, but so far, no one, especially not you, has made any kind of a case that shows those 9 experts are wrong.
So you don't have any point, just nonsense, just as I thought. You don't need to make sure anything about me, I had nothing to do with 9/11 or what happened on 9/11 or any investigation into 9/11. Always making sure the focus is on anyone and everyone EXCEPT the 9/11 storytellers. You sure work hard at useless flailing.
The point was made back at the beginning. Something you continue to willfully ignore. No qualifications needed. Just your eyesight. Steven Jones paint chip spectrum: Harrit's "contaminated thermite" spectrum: Harrit misidentified paint chips as contaminated thermite!
The problem with that question is that I can't acknowledge what makes no sense. OCT is an acronym for Official Conspiracy Theory. Anything that has been proven is not theory, much less conspiracy theory. And that's a fact. That's an even more idiotic question, I cite those all the time (see above). You? Not so much I guess.
